In our ever eager urge to pre-divide to be conquered, gun owners are entering two camps.
Offensive and defensive.
The offensive camp is actually doing things to raise awareness and expand gun rights.
There are sub-camps but the core idea is that any gun law is an infringement and all gun laws are unconstitutional and should be eliminated.
Working from this assumption they go out and try to get gun laws eliminated.
The defensive side rejects this assumption.
They're taking a "this is all we're ever going to get, so don't scare the white people!" approach.
They don't agitate for repeals or court cases because "what if we lose?"
The offensive side asks, "but what if we WIN?"
The defensive side is always doom and gloom and "we're fucked this time for sure!"
A fucking they always predict but doesn't happen.
This is not to say we've never been fucked. It's just that when we get a good ravishing they're just as surprised as everyone else.
The defensive gun owner lives in terror of what the offensive gun owner will do next.
The actions of the offensive gun owner have, so far, not actually yielded the predicted results the defensive side loudly proclaimed were sure to follow.
I looked it up.
If you read them making the predictions the arguments are circular, examples are cherry picked and the carts are in front of the horses with regards to cause and effect.
Honestly, it reads a lot like anti-gun propaganda.
I wasn't going to call it lying, but self-delusion is lying to yourself and being unaware of it.
The offensive side has, likewise, made many failed predictions... But at least they have a couple wins under their belts.
I think there'd be more wins if the defensive side spent more time fighting the anti-gunners and less time insulting the offensive side.
Click here to submit $0.00 US for a lifetime subscription
Posts
Comments
Like so many things, polarization has driven this gulf between people who ostensibly should be on the same side. Unfortunately this often makes it difficult to do the smart things. In this case, there should be a way to try to keep the offensive side making smart decisions on which battles to take on. There is no question that defense needs to be done as well, but sometimes you've got to go on the offensive to win battles. I'm trying really hard here not to make any sportsball analogies since I know that won't go over well with Angus. :-D Anyway, basically I think that there is a smart path between the extremes. But I generally favor the balance being on the offensive side.
ReplyDeleteThat's because violent ground acquisition games such as sportsball are, in fact, a crypto-fascist metaphor for nuclear war..
DeleteThe defense side could go a LONG way towards this cooperative goal by not being pricks and opening with insults with every diatribe.
ReplyDeleteVery true. The easiest way to lose something, anything, is to not use it. Gun-fudders don't want us using what 'rights' our betters allow us to have. And they don't acknowledge that any restrictions on weapons is a restriction of a Constitutional Right.
DeleteRestrict their access to vehicles and these gun-fudders bitch and whine. Restrict their access to the internet and they carry on like spoiled children being denied an additional candy.
Restrict their access to weapons? Crickets. Crickets... and then they say such wonderful things like, 'You shouldn't own a gun unless you can practice with it yada yada yada.' Doesn't matter if the gun owner lives in a range-dessert, or has his or her time taken by family or work or whatever. No... the gun-fudders want us all to have constant edumacation and practice with a restricted set of weapons.
Like... me. I am on a fixed income and am the only person taking care of my disabled wife. I don't have the cash to go to the range all the time, nor can I get out to go to the range all the time. I admit I am no Carlos Hathcock, but the few times I have shot I've done at least as good as the cops I used to work with. But the gun-fudders have stated that someone like me shouldn't be a firearms owner/user.
Any lessening of the 'gun rights' we have ever had has been because of gun-larpers or gun-nutz or loud-mouthed-gun-enthuseasts.
And as usual, Angus, you say it better than most, really all, of the paid gun writers. Seriously, the NRA (if they were actually interested in recovering gun rights) should be paying you to write, not some of those other people...